G.D. Tarot astrology

ravenest

Does anyone else find the G.D. astrological attribution to the Minor Arcana rather strange?

One example is how their 7 planets dont go into the 36 decans of attribution.
This makes one left over so they put a Mars attribution at the begining and the end of their astro cycle (ie. two together). Their planetray cycle isnt compleated and is 'one out' making all sorts of varient influences on the cards eg. one small card might be influenced by a planet and a varient sephiroth. They start their zodiac at 0 deg Leo (fair enough) but their card numbering at 0 deg Aries.

A shame no one is updating their system with new 'justifications' as scientific discoveries or accepted terms of reference are further clarified (instead of using the old post-Victorian science / hermetics blend).

If I were doing it and my 'justifictaions' (fudges or tricks) were accepted as much as the G.D. (eg. they say the two Mars attributions need to be together because at that time of the year it is needed to change the long cold of winter into spring ... ummm beside the fact that I live in the Southern hemisphere and that comment makes no sense at all .. and beside the fact that why doesnt the long hot of summer need the same cold energy in the north ... and beside the fact that the Southern hemisphere actually gets more thermal energy in summer than the north does in their summer- due to placement of the Earth - it is balanced out by the Pacific Ocean) and besides the fact that .... blah blah blah.

My fudge would be to accept the 'newly' discovered (and disqualified planets) and give similar (but better

) than G.D. justification raves to show how Neptune corresponds to Kether (1 ) and Uranus to Chokmah ( 2 ) (I handily leave out Pluto as it's no longer a planet

).

Then I will consider 0 = 0 ,,, so 10 really = 1. Then I can attribute my neptune to the 10's. representing the kether in the Tree below in the next world manifesting in the 10 malkuth above (hey! Come on, its not as rad as an Ace sitting on a Princess at the North Pole) in the higher world.

Now I have 9 planets through 4 cycles of 10 dgrees that match up with their Sepirothic influence and the cards (ie, every 5 card will be ruled by Mars evry 6 by Sol etc.) and a nice balanced system.

One might want to change SOME of the minor cards titles though :laugh:

Scion

...Except that those weren't the "Golden Dawn's" seven planets. Mathers and Westcott and their cohorts borrowed them, along with everything else they used, from the esoteric texts available to them easily at the time in languages they knew how to read. They used what they had, and the seven planets were at the root. It stands to reason: those seven wanderers were the basis of pretty much every esoteric tradition we think of as Western: astrology, QBLH, alchemy, gnosticism, et al. The GD merely coopted a symbolic system that had been working fine for several thousand years over many many thousands of miles. Not for nothing was it called the Queen of the Sciences.

Traditional astrology worked without extra planets or the need for them. It's not like folks sat around thinking, "yeah this is great and all, but one day we'll get some new planets that will REALLY kick ass." Seven was the deal. :thumbsup:

That carries over into all of Western esotericism and religion, frankly. The thing is the decans aren't literally the planet in sign, rather, the decans are reflective of something similar to those planets as they are expressed in those 10 degree chunks of those signs. It's more of a mnemonic than a descriptive. This is probably the reason that in the earliest Hellenistic material they are referred to as Faces... rather than decans which (meaning "tenth") only referred to the abstract astral geography.

Moreover, the decanic attributions of "planet in sign" predates the GD by around 2000 years. The Golden Dawn didn't decide which planet went where or that that Mars began and ended the cycle... They lifted the entire system from Barrett, who plagiarized it from Agrippa, who got it from the Picatrix, which probably got it from Mashallah or Biruni or Ibn Ezra and the Yavanajataka, which got it from the Liber Hermetis or its fellows. The antiquity of the tradition and its roots in the Egyptian calendrical cycle (and very likely in Babylonian ritual if you go with Boll's theories) speaks to the roots of augury as a science. That's a couple thousand years of people testing and tweaking the decans/planets/signs and their attributes to get it right. And not newspaper astrologers telling everything they're skinny or loved or talented; we're talking a few millenia of career astrologers who earned their living based on their ability to give service.

Ancient astrologers didn't just "make it up" as they went; in fact we have access to some of the massive astronomic data collations in Mesopotamia that led to the early generalizations about the powers and authority of the seven planets or the celestial geography they traversed. Those scholars weren't just "doing what felt right," they were as-above-so-belowing their hearts out to see the connections in practical, trackable terms. Which in turn is the seed of astrology and thence QBLH and alchemy and a whole lot of other bits and bobs. Not for nothing was the Babylonian exile so pivotal in Jewish mythography and Talmudic exegesis. So too, the MATH required for all this winnowed out a lot of the intellectual chaff back in the day; you couldn't just flip through an ephemeris; spherical geometry with that many moving points is no joke. But again, not just winging it as they went. (not that I'm suggesting that you'd say so, but rather that a lot of modern writers who don't do their homework seem to think so. *cough* Llewellyn *cough*)

The thing is, many people would argue that the outer planets don't actually WORK with the traditional esoteric systems because the real astrology isn't a case of rapid "improvements." It evolved and mutated over time; at core some basics remained constant. The Seven are pretty much eternal in their wanderings and therefore in their influence, yeah? No two ways. Frankly, history bears this out! By the time astrology gloms on to the outer planets it's in cultural and professional decline and quickly manages to devolve into pastel backpatting that makes everyone feel "empowered" about nothing. Whether you want to say that's because those bodies are too far out to matter or move too slowly to affect individuals or simply their influence wasn't reckoned in the premodern systems... they just don't wedge in smoothly.

Obviously I have several bees in several bonnets about this one... On top of it, I'm less and less enthralled with GD QBLH as a core for Tarot; it's useful, but I'm too aware of the cracks. The thing is, as you know, the more work I do researching traditional astrology the less practical utility or theoretical value I find in the QBLH-centric-tarot position. Mid-Victorian QBLH is a a bit like Barnum's mermaid... a monkey sewed to a fish that gets a lot of airtime because it's on display for the masses. Because of a quirk of history, the GD were Oxbridge fellows and there was more textual material available on QBLH, so they wrote and elaborated about it more. So all of us who benefitted from broken vows and published secrets have been awash in it for a century. And most (not all, but most) people are using the Tarot for something other than Theurgy. All things considered, my impulse is to push upstream rather than splashing around in the GD's delta mud.

ravenest said:
Does anyone else find the G.D. astrological attribution to the Minor Arcana rather strange?

And as you say, I DO think the astro-attributions are strange, both for minors and majors. I have a theory about that, but I'd rather wait until I have my facts straight before I start stomping around on that point. I agree with you about the Hemispheric issues, but you can hardly fault the western tradition for not figuring how best to speak to spirits below the equator.

That's quite another thing in itself, the long distance appropriation of spirits and spiritual tradition. Can you really talk to Marduk in English? Doesn't Sobek expect a beer that's brewed differently than Bud Light? What about shamans who live in subdivisions? :bugeyed:

The dingdongy New-Age anything-goes model has a lot to answer for as far as stripmining legitimate tradition in favor of empty posturing.

Only my take, of course... and I have a deep tradiionalist streak, but I thought I'd wade in while the waters were warm.

X

Scion

ravenest

Scion said:
Mid-Victorian QBLH is a a bit like Barnum's mermaid... a monkey sewed to a fish that gets a lot of airtime because it's on display for the masses. . . . I agree with you about the Hemispheric issues, but you can hardly fault the western tradition for not figuring how best to speak to spirits below the equator. Scion

Ha har! ... or in my case, no its not a duck sewn to an otter its a god- damned platypuss!

ravenest

Okay, I got a bit more time now (at library). I didnt have time to digest the above before properly. Thanks for the indepth answer by the way S

.

Obviously I left out the key ingredient above in my system .... to write it all down in code on some old paper and insert it into an old magical book in some mysterious musty bookshop down some old back laneway of Melbourne.

But on a more serious note, if YOU have the time I'd like to ask a few more questions.

Scion said:
...Except that those weren't the "Golden Dawn's" seven planets. Mathers and Westcott and their cohorts borrowed them, along with everything else they used, from the esoteric texts available to them easily at the time in languages they knew how to read. They used what they had, and the seven planets were at the root. It stands to reason: those seven wanderers were the basis of pretty much every esoteric tradition we think of as Western: astrology, QBLH, alchemy, gnosticism, et al. The GD merely coopted a symbolic system that had been working fine for several thousand years over many many thousands of miles. Not for nothing was it called the Queen of the Sciences.

Yeah, I guess the G.D. was pretty much defunct when the new planetary discoveries began to be introduced into modern astrolgy?

Scion said:
...
Traditional astrology worked without extra planets or the need for them. It's not like folks sat around thinking, "yeah this is great and all, but one day we'll get some new planets that will REALLY kick ass." Seven was the deal. That carries over into all of Western esotericism and religion, frankly.

The thing is the decans aren't literally the planet in sign, rather, the decans are reflective of something similar to those planets as they are expressed in those 10 degree chunks of those signs.

Sorry, are you saying that a decan is a segment of the zodiac ruled by (something similar to)a planet as a primary understanding? I assumed that the 10 degree segment decans were describing the three phases of a sign pretty much 'alone' and the planetary placement in a decan was just some type of match up (like; Hey! There are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and 22 major tarot cards. As opposed to saying; each tarot card is a representation of a Hebrew letter) I never thought of a decan as necassarily being attributed to a planet. Or are you saying that the devisions that make the decans are 'something similar to a planet'? or ... a decan, by deffinition is a 10 degree segment ruled by a planet and that concept is better decribed by another term (like faces)?

Scion said:
...
It's more of a mnemonic than a descriptive. This is probably the reason that in the earliest Hellenistic material they are referred to as Faces... rather than decans which (meaning "tenth") only referred to the abstract astral geography.

I think maybe (?) I have been seeing it like the second idea but not the first idea, the 'faces'.

Scion said:
...
Moreover, the decanic attributions of "planet in sign" predates the GD by around 2000 years. The Golden Dawn didn't decide which planet went where or that that Mars began and ended the cycle... They lifted the entire system from Barrett, who plagiarized it from Agrippa, who got it from the Picatrix, which probably got it from Mashallah or Biruni or Ibn Ezra and the Yavanajataka, which got it from the Liber Hermetis or its fellows. The antiquity of the tradition and its roots in the Egyptian calendrical cycle (and very likely in Babylonian ritual if you go with Boll's theories) speaks to the roots of augury as a science. That's a couple thousand years of people testing and tweaking the decans/planets/signs and their attributes to get it right. And not newspaper astrologers telling everything they're skinny or loved or talented; we're talking a few millenia of career astrologers who earned their living based on their ability to give service.

So this planetary / decan system can be used in astrological prediction? (sorry I'm NOT an astrologer.)

Scion said:
...
Ancient astrologers didn't just "make it up" as they went; in fact we have access to some of the massive astronomic data collations in Mesopotamia that led to the early generalizations about the powers and authority of the seven planets or the celestial geography they traversed. Those scholars weren't just "doing what felt right," they were as-above-so-belowing their hearts out to see the connections in practical, trackable terms. Which in turn is the seed of astrology and thence QBLH and alchemy and a whole lot of other bits and bobs. Not for nothing was the Babylonian exile so pivotal in Jewish mythography and Talmudic exegesis. So too, the MATH required for all this winnowed out a lot of the intellectual chaff back in the day; you couldn't just flip through an ephemeris; spherical geometry with that many moving points is no joke. But again, not just winging it as they went. (not that I'm suggesting that you'd say so, but rather that a lot of modern writers who don't do their homework seem to think so. *cough* Llewellyn *cough*)

Watch that Llewellyn cough mate, it's contagious, I caught it when reading their pathworking books.

Scion said:
...
The thing is, many people would argue that the outer planets don't actually WORK with the traditional esoteric systems because the real astrology isn't a case of rapid "improvements." It evolved and mutated over time; at core some basics remained constant. The Seven are pretty much eternal in their wanderings and therefore in their influence, yeah?

Oh yeah, its a pretty much cemented in archetype now. Sufi teaching (in some schools) says one must understand something in 7 ways before one truely understands it. I always equated that to mean, for me, to look at an issue in the 7 perspectives of the planets (or 'last' 7 Sephiroth).

Scion said:
...
No two ways. Frankly, history bears this out! By the time astrology gloms on to the outer planets it's in cultural and professional decline and quickly manages to devolve into pastel backpatting that makes everyone feel "empowered" about nothing. Whether you want to say that's because those bodies are too far out to matter or move too slowly to affect individuals or simply their influence wasn't reckoned in the premodern systems... they just don't wedge in smoothly.

Nah ... hence my above 'fudges'. Why wont the Universe do what I want it to! Not that the other system wedges in smoothly ... but , as you say, has the 'proof' of the ages. (And considering back then a bad astrologer didnt just take the money and run for it ... one was likeley, in some cases, to loose one's head.)

Scion said:
...
Obviously I have several bees in several bonnets about this one... On top of it, I'm less and less enthralled with GD QBLH as a core for Tarot; it's useful, but I'm too aware of the cracks. The thing is, as you know, the more work I do researching traditional astrology the less practical utility or theoretical value I find in the QBLH-centric-tarot position.

LIke studying Egyptology in an attempt to comprehend what Crowley was on about.

Scion said:
...
Mid-Victorian QBLH is a a bit like Barnum's mermaid... a monkey sewed to a fish that gets a lot of airtime because it's on display for the masses. Because of a quirk of history, the GD were Oxbridge fellows and there was more textual material available on QBLH, so they wrote and elaborated about it more. So all of us who benefitted from broken vows and published secrets have been awash in it for a century. And most (not all, but most) people are using the Tarot for something other than Theurgy. All things considered, my impulse is to push upstream rather than splashing around in the GD's delta mud.

I got washed out into the ocean long ago ...

Scion said:
...
And as you say, I DO think the astro-attributions are strange, both for minors and majors. I have a theory about that, but I'd rather wait until I have my facts straight before I start stomping around on that point.

I hope you post it here when you do.

Scion said:
...
I agree with you about the Hemispheric issues, but you can hardly fault the western tradition for not figuring how best to speak to spirits below the equator. That's quite another thing in itself, the long distance appropriation of spirits and spiritual tradition. Can you really talk to Marduk in English? Doesn't Sobek expect a beer that's brewed differently than Bud Light? What about shamans who live in subdivisions? The dingdongy New-Age anything-goes model has a lot to answer for as far as stripmining legitimate tradition in favor of empty posturing.

You can't get rid of it while it is a way of making money.

Scion said:
...
Only my take, of course... and I have a deep tradiionalist streak, but I thought I'd wade in while the waters were warm.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting response.

I would like to nut out the G.D. astro maps with their ecliptic equator and varient pole but perhaps its been done here before (lets exclude my previous thread urk! Which I am going to re edit).

Any ideas where?

ravenest

Ahhh, I found one of my major questions answered here.

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=95395&page=2&pp=10

The astronomical mapping of the Equinoctal Pole and path of the astronomical Celestial Pole in relation to it ... in a diagram!
Thanks to Ross.

Where does this system (using an ecliptic pole and making the celestial equator the ecliptic) come from? Is it used for any other purpose? (I know The G.D. intro refers to Ptolemy, but I didnt get the connection. [I thought Ptolomy developed a geocentric (dual centered) model ? Did it include this Ecliptic Pole as the reference point?]

sapienza

ravenest said:
Does anyone else find the G.D. astrological attribution to the Minor Arcana rather strange?

Scion said:
And as you say, I DO think the astro-attributions are strange, both for minors and majors. I have a theory about that, but I'd rather wait until I have my facts straight before I start stomping around on that point.

Interesting response above Scion. I know this thread is quite old now, but just wondering if your theory is one you'd like to share yet? I'm intrigued.

ravenest

Me too, as I said else where - I've been patiently waiting .......... but I know how post - production in the film industry can go :fume:

G.D. Tarot astrology

ravenest

Scion

ravenest

ravenest

ravenest

sapienza

ravenest